What We Think: Decision to publish was the right one

There are times when news organizations must weigh their First Amendment right to inform the public against other important considerations.

We believe we made the right decision in publishing details of Daniel Harmon's prior convictions for rape and kidnapping while he was on trial for the 1989 murder of Christine Marie Wood, despite concerns of the defense attorney and the judge that publication could lead to a mistrial. Although a jury did find Harmon guilty last week, a previous trial for the 1989 murder had ended in a mistrial.

Withholding that information would not have been in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment and the numerous Supreme Court decisions upholding and defining the right of the press to inform the public.

The judge in the case, 15th Judicial District Judge Glennon Everett, declined comment, saying it would be improper at this time because Harmon will probably appeal the conviction.

We respect that. It is part of his job as a judge.

The controversy became public when defense attorney Alfred Boustany II raised concerns that "pervasive" media coverage could taint the jury, senior staff writer Chris Ramirez reported in an article in The Daily Advertiser.

"If the jury gets tainted, it's the media's fault," Everett responded while the jury was still outside the courtroom.

We disagree it would be the media's fault.

It is never our intention to interfere with the judicial process. Trials should proceed without complications coming from the outside.

But that possibility had already been addressed by the judge.

Everett had already given the jury proper instructions when the trial began, which included an admonition not to read or view media reports of the trial and not to discuss the case among themselves.

When Boustany expressed his concerns, Everett took the extra precaution of asking jury members if they had read any accounts of the trial. The answer was no.

That is a judge's right and responsibility. Judges also have the right to move a trial to another location or to sequester the jury.

The right to publish trial information springs from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but those rights are not unlimited.

Although there is a general prohibition against prior restraint, or pre-publication censorship, there are exceptions. Information that could affect national security is one such exception, especially during wartime.

This was not one of those exceptions.

The defendant's criminal record is public information and can be obtained by any citizen under Louisiana's Open Records Law.

In addition, the right to publish information about an ongoing trial has been reaffirmed by court decisions, most notably, Nebraska Press Association vs. Stuart.

In that landmark 1976 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a previous lower court order to delay publication of details of a murder investigation was unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in the majority opinion that rather than hampering the courts, the press "guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism."

The Nebraska decision did away with judicial prior restraint, except in cases in which there was "clear and present danger" that coverage would preclude the possibility of a fair trial.

The Harmon trial was clearly not such a case, given that Harmon's criminal record was a matter of public record. The fact that there was no second mistrial also bears that out.

The Daily Advertiser takes its role in the community seriously and strives to always practice responsible reporting.

This was a case in which the public's right to know outweighed the perceived possible harm to the judicial process.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

What We Think: Decision to publish was the right one

There are times when news organizations must weigh their First Amendment right to inform the public against other important considerations.